Skip to comments.Murder Conviction Voided Over Miranda Rights Violation
Posted on 10/29/2013 7:45:16 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Judges rule that detectives failed to tell Reuben Kenneth Lujan of his right to have an attorney present at all times. He was convicted of killing his estranged wife and her friend with a concrete block.
Reuben Kenneth Lujan was sentenced to life without parole for killing his estranged wife, Monica, 26, and her friend, Deputy Gilbert Madrigal, 45, by smashing their heads with a concrete block. Lujan had previously been arrested for stalking and threatening Monica, who had left him four months before the 1998 killings. Madrigal was her neighbor, and Lujan suspected that she was dating him.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding a lower court decision, agreed that detectives failed to administer a complete Miranda warning before questioning Lujan. Specifically, they did not tell Lujan that he had a right to an attorney before and during the interrogation and did not end the questioning once he asked for a lawyer, the court said.
Lujan also confessed to the killings during his trial, but that confession cannot be used against him because he only testified to explain his earlier admissions, the 9th Circuit said.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Ain’t America grand?
An arrestee must know his rights but jurors need not be informed.
So, are these three “monkey judges” going to bring the wife and her friend back to life or what?
Miranda was made up under the assumption cops lie about having advised suspects of their rights.So as long as we’re assuming,
what’s to say they can’t just lie about having Mirandized someone ,too? (not all states tape confessions)
Seems silly to interrupt a suspect who starts spilling his guts on the ride to precinct so you can “mirandize” him. This scheme was invented by the same ilk who think there are people who don’t know smoking is bad for you and thereby they should be awarded money for smoking .If you won’t or can’t read the Bill of Rights, don’t complain when you don’t know your rights.
In an interesting aside, Ernesto Miranda of miranda fame was murdered in a bar fight and his murderer was freed due to not being “mirandized” correctly.He got his justice, IMO.what comes around,goes around.
If the Miranda rights are so damn important, why don’t the public school, young skulls full of mush programmers get off their butts and have the “students” memorize them in school? Surely they can slip condoms and cucumbers in there somewhere.
I’ve never understood this. If the cops violate someone’s rights than sanction the cop. Don’t turn a murderer lose on society.
Funny thing; the individual whose case bore the name Miranda, was stabbed to death in some desert bar after his release. The perp who stabbed him was Mirandized upon his arrest for murdering Miranda.
Why you should never talk to the police:
The police involved should be charged as accomplices.
Exactly. Why not just post a huge poster of the Miranda rights on the wall of every interrogation room and have the murderers recite them back before beginning the interrogation? Put all the BS back on the perp.
How in the world does a cop not Mirandize anyone that they put under arrest?
Unbelievable. In all the months I spent in the police Academy, we were constantly reminded that the first thing you do after putting the cuffs on anyone was to read them their rights. At the Academy, the first thing we did in the morning was recite the Miranda rights and the last thing we did before we went home at the end of the day was recite the Miranda rights (and this was back in 1978).
If was so ingrained, that I dreamed Miranda rights in sleep.
I’m with you. How can one NOT Mirandize guys like this? Very frustrating to see a murderer get off. Hopefully, he’ll meet the same end Ernesto did.
So you are okay with convictions resulting from warrantless searches as long as the cops are reprimanded?”
There has to be some sort of balance. Turning a monster loose on society because an I wasn’t dotted or a t wasn’t crossed is not right either. Do you support that? As far as illegal searches, if the cops were fired, and if flagrant and willful they should face criminal charges. There are other remedies and it would depend on each case. But neither remedy should be blindly automatic.
There isn’t a balance. Those rights protect everybody and law enforcement need to cross their t’s and dot their i’s. Not that hard to do.
It wasn’t just the lack of a full Miranda warning. When he specifically asked to speak to an attorney, he was ignored and the questioning continued.
Prior to his confession, Petitioner had the following exchange with the detective:
[Petitioner]: Can I have an attorney present?
[Detective]: You want, you want an attorney present? You feel you need one?
[Petitioner]: Yes I do.
[Detective]: Okay. All right. If that’s what you want to do, we’ll do that.
[Petitioner]: Can I get one in here today?
[Detective]: I really doubt it. I mean, I’m going to be honest with you. It’s Sunday evening. When you go to court in a couple of days there will be one appointed for you. That’s the way the system is set up...
He may be scum, but the cops screwed up big time. When someone asks to speak to an attorney, you don’t tell them to wait a few days and keep on asking questions.
“If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) at 444. It has been the law for close to 50 years now...
I wonder how are we supposed to tell who's guilty and who's being railroaded by the cops if there's no real consequence for police wrongdoing? Face it, most police states tend towards evil. A banal evil.
“if the cops were fired, and if flagrant and willful they should face criminal charges”
Those are real world consequences. Turning a bad guy lose just angers them but doesn’t really punish the cop. The next victim is the one who suffers the consequences. Most people know they have the right to remain silent and have an attorney. Those are your rights whether they read them to you or not. I would venture to say the majority of people that get off on the technicality of not having their rights read to them have had them rights read to them beforehand. In this case here he was arrested earlier for stalking her. Must not have read him his rights that time either.
We pay a high price for our freedoms.
And I want to keep MY freedoms.
The police screwed up big time. Miranda rights are the law.
This is a sad outcome, but I want the police to behave professionally, not just do whatever they want, when they want. they do enough of that as it is.
I want MY rights protected from a Police State, and if we have to have an outcome sometimes like this, so be it. I don’t trust the government, especially now.
a lot of freeprs here are just ready to give up all their rights, if its something they want justice on...in other words, a vigilante society or the Police State we are already heading to! Individual rights and the Law be damned.
Oh, brilliant..and then WHO decides on a “some sort of balance”..THAT”S the whole idea of a nation of Laws..so they are enforced equally and at all times under the Law.
I guess, if I get arrested and they “forgot ‘ to read me Miranda, or wouldn’t let me talk to a lawyer when I asked...well, its just a “technicality”. Uh, no thanks.
“then WHO decides on a some sort of balance..”
That would be that same judge that just automatically kicks you loose now. And by the way they don’t have to read you your rights when they arrest you. They only have to if they are going to use what you say against you.
So I take it you don’t care that jurors aren’t read their rights?
BTW I didn’t say there was anything wrong with being mirandized.
Its really a very basic thing. If you’re arrested tell police only what you must and ask for an attorney.
My real issue is with judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys running roughshod over juror rights simply because jurors are unaware of what rights and powers they have.
Its the result of an 1895 supreme court ruling that “Jurors need not be informed of their rights” (Sparf vs US I believe)
Not that it's any consolation, really.